1 / 24

Diachronic works in RDA

Diachronic works in RDA. PCC Operations Committee meeting Library of Congress, 2 May 2019. What is a diachronic work?. A diachronic work is a work that is planned to be embodied over time , rather than as a single “act of publication”.

margaritaf
Download Presentation

Diachronic works in RDA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Diachronic works in RDA PCC Operations Committee meeting Library of Congress, 2 May 2019

  2. What is a diachronic work? • A diachronic work is a work that is planned to be embodied over time, rather than as a single “act of publication”. • The essence of a diachronic work is a plan for the change of content. • Change of content = extension of content

  3. How is content extended? • By accumulation (the addition of content in discrete physical or logical units): successive works • By replacement (new content is integrated with—and may replace—existing content): integrating works • In RDA these methods are specified by the extension plan element of the work entity

  4. What is the extension plan element? • The extension plan element is a categorization combining values from two extension attributes of the RDA/ONIX Framework for Resource Categorization: • Extension mode (succession or integration) • Extension termination (whether or not period of extension has a predetermined end: determinate or indeterminate) • There is an additional category for resources with a static (non-diachronic) plan

  5. How are the values of the extension plan element recorded? • There is an RDA vocabulary encoding scheme (VES) for extension plan, with five possible values: • Integrating determinate plan • Integrating indeterminate plan • Static plan • Successive determinate plan • Successive indeterminate plan

  6. Integrating determinate plan • ROF extension mode • INTEGRATION • ROF extension termination • DETERMINATE • RDA extension plan • INTEGRATING DETERMINATE

  7. Integrating indeterminate plan • ROF extension mode • INTEGRATION • ROF extension termination • INDETERMINATE • RDA extension plan • INTEGRATING INDETERMINATE

  8. Static plan • ROF extension mode • N/A • ROF extension termination • N/A • RDA extension plan • STATIC

  9. Successive determinate plan • ROF extension mode • SUCCESSION • ROF extension termination • DETERMINATE • RDA extension plan • SUCCESSIVE DETERMINATE

  10. Successive indeterminate plan • ROF extension mode • SUCCESSION • ROF extension termination • INDETERMINATE • RDA extension plan • SUCCESSIVE INDETERMINATE •  Serial work

  11. How does this relate to IFLA LRM? • IFLA LRM (5.8 Modelling of serials) regards any serial as “a distinct instance of the work entity” [i.e. serials have a WEM lock] and uses specific relationships among these instances to connect them • The modeling of diachronic works in RDA is extrapolated from this modeling of serials in IFLA LRM

  12. So does a work with a diachronic extension plan have a WEM lock? • Yes, any work with a diachronic extension plan may berealized in one and only one expression and embodied in one and only one manifestation, a 1:1 cardinality in each case • Any work with a static extension plan adheres to the standard WEMI cardinality: it may be realized in one or more expressions and embodied in one or more manifestations, a 1:M cardinality in each case

  13. Come again? • RDA explains this in terms of transformation boundaries • A transformation boundary is a stage at which a work is treated as a new work separate from the existing work • For static works, a difference in content between two expressions is a necessary but insufficient indicator that each expression realizes a different work (no transformation boundary has necessarily been crossed) • For diachronic works, the potential for a difference in content (inherent in the fact that content is embodied over time) between two manifestations is sufficient in itself to indicate that each manifestation embodies a different expression and those expressions realize different works (the transformation boundary has been crossed)

  14. Work is a transformation of Work [LRM-R22] • Transformation by audience • Carrier version • Language version • Regional version • Transformation by genre • Transformation by policy • Transformation by extension plan • Transformation by style

  15. So how does this affect continuing resources? • Not much • For CR, RDA is simply implementing the IFLA LRM modeling of serials • Aligns more closely with ISSN practice • Pretty much reflects current CONSER practice • Preferred title of translations and languages editions = title proper

  16. What about multipart monographs issued over time? • RDA treats any multipart monograph issued over time as a diachronic work with a successive determinate extension plan • RDA no longer treats “multipart monograph” as a mode of issuance • Extension plan: successive determinate plan • Mode of issuance: multiple unit

  17. Can you give an example? • Encyclopædia Britannica (3rd edition) • Initially published from 1788 to 1797 in ca. 300 fascicles • Volume title pages issued later, all with “1797” as date of publication

  18. Now it’s getting personal… • w1 (static work): My dissertation • e1 Typescript (with diskettes in pocket) • e2 Typescript (without diskettes or pocket) • m1 Microfilm • m2+ Publish-on-demand from microfilm (several size and binding options) • m3 Digitized microfilm (ProQuest online products) • w2 (diachronic work): My dissertation, slightly abridged and published under what I thought was a catchier title in the vain hope of attracting a wider audience (or indeed any audience at all) • W2.1-2.2 Contributions to 2 successive issues of Cataloging & Classification Quarterly

  19. How do I now bring together works that RDA might formerly have considered expressions of a single work? • RDA permits closely related works to be treated as work groups • Descriptions of these works might be brought together by recording an appellation of work group (assigned from a vocabulary encoding scheme) as part of the description of each work

  20. For example, The Economist • Authorized access point for work group: Economist (London, England : 1843) • Drawn from LCNAF vocabulary encoding scheme (VES) • LCCN: no2019022928 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no2019022928 • Identifier for work group: 0013-0613 • Drawn from ISSN-L vocabulary encoding scheme (VES) • IRI: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q180089

  21. For example, Encyclopædia Britannica • Authorized access point for work group: Encyclopaedia Britannica • Drawn from LCNAF vocabulary encoding scheme (VES) • LCCN: nr89013909 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/nr89013909 • IRI: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q455

  22. The future: relationships? • Historically, we used uniform titles to bring together expressions and manifestations of works in the context of an alphabetical catalog. This has created a sizeable store of legacy data predicated on this mechanism for collocation • Prospectively, appellations of work groups may serve this purpose (though the underlying semantics may be a bit messy) • In a linked data environment, however, relationship matrices may increasingly serve this purpose: • Work A transformation by extension plan of Work B

  23. The present: pragmatic question (MARC / BIBFRAME) • How will one identify an RDA authorized access point for work group (identifying the members of a work group) in MARC or BIBFRAME? • Part of the larger question of mapping from RDA to MARC and/or BIBFRAME and vice versa • Currently we map in our heads, which is not really a satisfactory Linked Data solution

  24. Fin ejones@nu.edu

More Related